Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The ACRU filed suit alleging that defendant, the former Broward County Supervisor of Elections, failed to satisfy her list-maintenance obligations under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).The Eleventh Circuit held that, under the NVRA, the states and their subsidiaries are required to conduct a general program of list maintenance that makes a reasonable effort to remove voters who become ineligible on account of death or change of residence, and only on those two accounts. The court also held that nothing in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) changes what is required by the NVRA. Finally, the court held that the NVRA sets forth an explicit safe-harbor procedure by which the states may fulfill their list-maintenance obligations as to voters who move. In this case, the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendant's Election Supervisor conducted a program reasonably designed to accomplish these tasks required under the NVRA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "American Civil Rights Union v. Snipes" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied petitioner's application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner claimed that he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty. The court held that petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing that his claim satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2), because petitioner failed to rely on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable, because all the cases he relies on were either previously available to him or were not made retroactive to cases on collateral review. The court also denied petitioner's emergency motion to stay his execution. View "In re: Gary Ray Bowles" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was arrested for simple battery following an altercation with her sister, she filed suit against Deputy McDonough, alleging the violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the deputy.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and held that the deputy had ample probable cause to arrest plaintiff where the underlying information indicating that she had battered her sister was credible and his investigation was sufficient. The court also held that the deputy did not use excessive force in making the arrest by pulling plaintiff's arms, cinching the handcuffs too tight, or tugging on her fingers and arms to remove her rings. View "Huebner v. Bradshaw" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied the motion for stay of execution pending appeal, holding that the district court rightly dismissed petitioner's current petition as second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A). In this case, petitioner failed to obtain authorization from this court before filing the petition. The court rejected petitioner's remaining three claims as to why his petition should not be dismissed, and held that petitioner failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal. View "Bowles v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an involuntarily committed inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action claiming that FCCC's policies violated his expressive freedoms under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.Applying the four factor test in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–90 (1987), the Fifth Circuit held that the FCCC's ban of plaintiff's newsletter was reasonably related to the substantial government interest of security and safety that was unrelated to the suppression of expression. The three other factors also weigh in favor of FCCC where plaintiff has alternative means of exercising his asserted right; allowing residents to read the newsletter could increase tension and hostility, potentially resulting in inmate-on-staff violence; and the ban was not an exaggerated response to FCCC's security concerns. The court also held that the 2006 page-limit policy did not violate plaintiff's First Amendment rights where it clearly related to FCCC's legitimate interest in conserving resources. View "Pesci v. Budz" on Justia Law

8 C.F.R. 1003.14 sets forth a claim processing rule as opposed to a jurisdictional rule. The Eleventh Circuit held that, even assuming petitioner's notice to appear (NTA) was deficient under the regulations, the agency properly exercised jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because section 1003.14 could not have imposed jurisdictional limitations. Therefore, the IJ and BIA properly exercised jurisdiction over petitioner's removal order based on the authority conferred upon them by 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1). Therefore, the court denied the petition for review as to petitioner's Pereira claim.To the extent petitioner argued that he was nonetheless entitled to a remand because his NTA violated the agency's claim-processing rules, the court dismissed this part of his petition for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to exhaust the claim before the agency. The court rejected petitioner's due process claim, holding that the agency's decision not to address petitioner's appeal absent DHS briefing did not render his appeal fundamentally unfair.However, the court held that the BIA's determination that any motive to harm petitioner based on his family status was at most incidental was not supported by substantial evidence, because it was abundantly clear that petitioner's family relationship was one central reason, if not the central reason, for the harm he experienced. Therefore, the court granted his petition for review, and remanded his asylum and withholding of removal claims. View "Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that the City of LaGrange did not enjoy state-action immunity when it ties its water-utility service to its natural-gas service for customers in unincorporated Troup County, Georgia. In this case, the Georgia legislature could have foreseen that cities would use their water monopoly to increase their share of an unrelated market and that such an anticompetitive move was not the inherent, logical, or ordinary result of the legislative scheme. Therefore, the district court correctly denied the City's motion to dismiss for state-action immunity and the court affirmed the district court's judgment in this interlocutory appeal. View "Diverse Power, Inc. v. City of LaGrange" on Justia Law

Defendants Hawkins and McCree challenged their convictions for conspiring to distribute cocaine and other related offenses. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court plainly erred by admitting the lead case agent's testimony, because it was speculative and included improper commentary on the evidence. The panel held that defendants' remaining arguments were without merit or need not be reached. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony of defendant's proposed expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b); the district court's error by admitting the lay testimony of the case agent was harmless; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; the district court did not err by imposing a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice; and any error in denying defendant's post-trial motion for a new trial was harmless. View "United States v. Stahlman" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's stay of execution, holding that 18 U.S.C. 3599 did not create a right that was enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the states. Plaintiff wanted to pursue his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim that Florida interfered with his right under section 3599 to have attorneys in the Capital Habeas Unit (CHU) of the Federal Public Defender's Office represent him before the Florida Clemency Commission and Board.Therefore, because plaintiff sought to enforce a right under section 1983 that Congress did not make enforceable against the states, he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his section 1983 claim before the district court. Consequently, he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to stay his execution. Finally, the court held that plaintiff failed to show that he was otherwise entitled to the stay. View "Bowles v. Desantis" on Justia Law